The only thing that is indubitably real

[A_part_of_existence]

1) If something is indubitably real, then it's reality is absolutely immune to doubt
2) How do we hypothetically doubt the reality of something? If the thing in question could be copied or simulated, then its reality is doubtable.
3) Given 2, that which cannot be copied or simulated is indubitably real
4) the only items that cannot be copied or simulated in anyway are: omnipresence (substance) omnipotence and omniscience
5) Given 4, that which is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, is indubitably real.

That which is indubitably real, is the first item of knowledge.

[Impenitent]

1) If something is indubitably real, then it's reality is absolutely immune to doubt
2) How do we hypothetically doubt the reality of something? If the thing in question could be copied or simulated, then its reality is doubtable.
3) Given 2, that which cannot be copied or simulated is indubitably real
4) the only items that cannot be copied or simulated in anyway are: omnipresence (substance) omnipotence and omniscience
5) Given 4, that which is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, is indubitably real.

That which is indubitably real, is the first item of knowledge.

knowledge itself is a mental copy of sensory impressions

besides, Rene said it better...

-Imp

[A_part_of_existence]

knowledge itself is a mental copy of sensory impressions

besides, Rene said it better...

-Imp

Rene was great, but he missed two important arguments relevant to his field.

An idea of x is not always a simulation or copy of x. Consider the following:

I have the idea of a triangle. I have copied the visual shape of a triangle. In addition to this, I have an understanding of a triangle. The rational aspect of a triangle (three sides, angles totalling 180 degrees) is not a copy or simulation. It's just a rational understanding.

I don't have a visual image of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. I just have a rational understanding. I could simulate a triangle by drawing one or visualising one. I can't do the same about omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience because in order for me to do that, I would have to have reach and access to the entirety of existence. I do not have this therefore I cannot do this. How could you simulate omnipresence, omnipotence or omniscience? Surely understanding it, is not simulating it.

[Impenitent]

defining something (and then giving the definition a special name) does not give it empirical existence

Ludwig is smiling

-Imp

[duszek]

Let´s take a plate in form of a triangle lying on a table.

A human being perceives it and thinks: a plate in the form of a triangle.

A snail (with no eyes) moves on the plate and crosses it and leaves it again.

It the plate real from the perspective of the human being and the snail ?

Is perception necessary for a thing to be real ? (the plate could be lying on the ground of the Atlantic Ocean)

[A_part_of_existence]

defining something (and then giving the definition a special name) does not give it empirical existence

Ludwig is smiling

-Imp

Based on his work on language and certainty, I think Ludwig would agree that you can't doubt the concept of doubt because its meaning is needed for its application. But this has further logical implications:

If doubt is possible, then there is existence. If there is existence, then there is at least one thing that is indubitably real. I think rationally we are obliged to acknowledge this. But this has further logical implications:
That which can't be copied or simulated is indubitably real.

Rationally, is there any other way of determining what this indubitably real thing is? I've filtered through all possible items of thought trying to rationally find items that cannot be copied or simulated. I found three that do this.

Consider the term "omni-matter" the term looks as thought it is made up. But semantically, all it amounts to is that "matter is in everything and it encompasses all things". Omni-matter is therefore a coherent term. It's not the label that matters, it's whether the definition is coherent or objective that counts.

[duszek]

Langsam, langsam.

Matter is in everything (every thing) and it encompasses all things.

Imagined things too or only really existing things ?
Material things, perceivable things ?

Matter is in every material thing ?

Ludwig´s ghost is sighing.

[A_part_of_existence]

Let´s take a plate in form of a triangle lying on a table.

A human being perceives it and thinks: a plate in the form of a triangle.

A snail (with no eyes) moves on the plate and crosses it and leaves it again.

It the plate real from the perspective of the human being and the snail ?

Is perception necessary for a thing to be real ? (the plate could be lying on the ground of the Atlantic Ocean)

I think I understand your point but my argument is not in relation to sensory stimuli.
My argument does not rely on the 5 senses. I am purely focused on reason.

If we take the snail and the human in your example to both be rational creatures of equal capacity, then I think the following applies to both of them:

The human would see that the snail is on a triangular plate. The snail would just hear things. Both creatures have questions about existence and reality. They want to establish something immune to doubt using their reasoning.

Aside from what I am about to lay out, is there any other way that they can do this?

The creatures would realise, that rationally they can't doubt the concept of doubt because its meaning is needed for its application. But this has further logical implications that they must acknowledge:

If doubt is possible, then there is existence. If there is existence, then there is at least one thing that is indubitably real. But then this has further logical implications that they must acknowledge:
That which can't be copied or simulated is indubitably real.
Rationally, is there any other way of determining what this indubitably real thing is? If not, then they are rationally obliged to acknowledge that that which cannot be copied or simulated, is indubitably real. Is there any other way around this?

[duszek]

Do you have an example of what cannot be copied or simulated ?

A cookie that I have on my plate cannot be copied because it occupies a unique position in time and space ?

(I have a whole box of them on the shelf, they all look pretty much the same.)

[A_part_of_existence]

Langsam, langsam.

Matter is in everything (every thing) and it encompasses all things.

Imagined things too or only really existing things ?
Material things, perceivable things ?

Matter is in every material thing ?

Ludwig´s ghost is sighing.

You are right. Matter is only in every material thing.

But I can't see how something incorporeal (non-matter or substance) can interact with something corporeal (substance or matter). Isn't this paradoxical?

Based on this, I feel rationally obliged to either acknowledge existence as entirely physical, or entirely mental. I have conjectured physical. As for the imagination, I think that it's some form of physical substance that we may not have adequate scientific knowledge of. But this is just pure conjecture on my part.

Where I have not conjectured, is that the ideas of omnipresence (whether this be thought [omni-thought] or substance [omni-matter]) omnipotence and omnipresence, cannot be copied or simulated. On those grounds, they are the only indubitably real traits of existence.

[A_part_of_existence]

Do you have an example of what cannot be copied or simulated ?

A cookie that I have on my plate cannot be copied because it occupies a unique position in time and space ?

(I have a whole box of them on the shelf, they all look pretty much the same.)

Ok so if we say that the cookie occupies a unique position in time and space within this universe, then the question becomes, can the universe be hypothetically copied or simulated? If we say yes, then all the space-time points of the universe can be copied or simulated also. But are we justified in saying yes?

If the universe is finite, then I think we are justified in saying yes. If however some other thing was infinite, then this logically entails that it encompasses our universe. This thing would not be hypothetically copyable or simulatable. But then since this thing encompasses all things, it is omnipresent. So it goes back to omnipresence can't be copied or simulated.

[A_part_of_existence]

I should also add that by infinite, I mean infinite in terms of x y z and time.

If we reject the infiniteness of the dimensions of existence, then we run into a paradox. How can something come from nothing (time) and how can space or that which encompasses space, be finite such that it is bordering nothingness?

[duszek]

Can my thought, unique in time and space, be copied and simulated ?

Or my emotion ?

[A_part_of_existence]

Can my thought, unique in time and space, be copied and simulated ?

Or my emotion ?

Can you be hypothetically copied or simulated? If yes, then I think so can all your emotions and thoughts. If a physical view of existence is adopted, then your emotion would correspond to something physical. And if that physical thing is finite, then it can be copied or simulated.

Ultimately I think it comes down to this. If you are finite, then you can be copied or simulated. Take the universe as it is. Provided that it is finite, why can't it, along with all its contents (including all humans and their emotions and thoughts) be replicated in exactly the same way?

[duszek]

I am finite and my emotions are finite too.
Therefore I can be copied and simulated. And my emotions too.
Therefore I am not real. And neither are my emotions.

It THAT what you are saying ?